Reply With Quote
Palin should have put tic tacs on the map.
Mongols?
Palin should have put tic tacs on the map.
So the semiotic options are targeting symbols that are inextricably associated with weaponry (and, thus violence) or unicorns and rainbows? I don't believe you are that unimaginative.
We'd both agree, I think, that of course Palin didn't intend to incite violence with her poster; she was just marketing herself using the attention-grabbing trappings of her brand/persona.
But just the fact that people are having this discussion proves there are morons on both sides out there who can't distinguish between the literal and the figurative use of crosshairs, or the literal and figurative use of "patriotic freedom fighter" rhetoric, etc. It follows, then, that there are people who are dumb enough to misinterpret things in extreme, potentially gruesome ways, be it in support of what they think you said, or contrary to it.
It's more of a philosophical question than anything, I guess: If we take as a given that the larger our audience, so the lower our common denominator, so the greater probability of being mis-interpreted; at what point, then, do we need to begin exercising restraint in our public statements in order to make ourselves better understood to everyone, both followers and adversaries?
Palin should be free to say what she wants to however she chooses to, but if her business is protecting her brand, she needs to find equilibrium, I think, in the same way that a dairy farmer may really like salt, but realize that salty milk would not net the greatest return, or a CEO may like dirty jokes, but realize it would hurt his stock to bust out the ribaldry at a public function.
If she's content with being a small-time entertainer, her present tack will suit her fine and she'll end up turning into a Pat Buchanan cable clown. But if she's legitimately vying for high office, she's going to have to tone down some of the cutesy, divisive marketing strategies she's used so far and find the (pretty vast) middle ground between kitschy Christian moose-hunter/freedom-fighter branding and gay-ass, PETA-friendly ponies and rainbows.
Mongols are perfectly nice people these days.
Can't see the problem. Sure we could bicker over who killed who, but what would that solve?
"Palin should be free to say what she wants to however she chooses to"
I hope she continues, because she couldn't shoot herself in her foot more than with the "blood libel" crap, although I figure she can do worse.
She has no chance for any elected office, except maybe game warden for Wasilla Alaska.
Correction: Palin didn't incite violence with her poster.
To date, there is absolutely zero evidence the political rhetoric of Ms. Palin, the Tea Party, or anyone else on the right, incited any violence.
This needs to be recognized and those who have pushed the narrative for the past week need to apologize.
lol crosshairs
lol blood libel
no incitement, no culpability, no responsibility.
And, behold, a perfect example of the unhinged left that will cling to a narrative in the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary.
Thanks for playing along clambake.
the only overwhelming fact is that a guy went on a killing spree at a democratic rally.
sincerely,
the guy who knows malkin's article starts off with lies yet supports it while calling out other's for ignoring the overwhelming facts
I'm sorry, what was the lie?
obama blamed the right.
thank for playing
The article is linked in here? Forgive me for not believing you but, I'd like to read that for myself.
There are 38 pages of posts...seriously, I don't recall the essay.
Arizona GOP Pushing For Guns On College Campuses
Arizona Republicans remain adamant that the shooting will not dissuade them from pushing their pro-gun agenda.
They want new laws allowing college and university faculty members to be able to carry concealed weapons on campus, an issue that gained attention after the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech University. Only Utah has a law allowing concealed weapons on college campuses while 24 states have bans, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...tml?view=print
==========
childish, drunk college kids packing heat. yep, the insane are running the asylum
would still be illegal per your article
They want new laws allowing college and university faculty members to be able to carry concealed weapons on campus
Don't confuse b_d with facts.
I liked it the way I had it, thanks -- our legal system has a fondness for weighing people's intentions that I guess rubbed off on me somewhere along the way -- even if the poster had incited a depressing incident, I would still not fault Palin because, for all her Gomer Pyle Machiavellianism, she doesn't strike me as being capable of willfully standing behind actual calls to violence. She just wants the money, Lebowski.
That said... you want apologies? Seriously?
It's crass and depressing, but all these politicians and pundits on both sides are going to exploit the out of this tragedy and turn it into a football to try to and get some yardage until something else catches the nation's attention. The Left attacks Palin. Palin attacks the Left. Obama condescends to mediate. Rinse, repeat.
Maybe it's a good thing, I dunno... at least by using these murders as political devices in larger self-promotional narratives, they can make the completely pointless and arbitrary murders/injuries of the victims seem as though they make sense in a Big Picture way.
Of course you do. It subtly infers her poster incited violence.
Eh, I'm sure yoni believes rap music incites black people to violence and gas station yelling.
I am of the opinion that Loughner's actions were likely not the result of any specific rhetorical influence, and would generally agree that there has been no evidence suggesting a direct connection between the shooting and Palin's poster, but I'm curious as to why you're confusing the lack of evidence of a connection for the evidence of no connection.
Should Palin and the right apologize to themselves? Because I've seen this narrative pushed by the right as much as by anyone else.
It unsubtly inferred it was stupid marketing because it makes some people on either end of the political spectrum think about violence -- that's about it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
